". . . it is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, it is a hard matter to get right."
-- Joseph Smith, Nauvoo, Ill. April 7, 1844

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

The Mormons and KJV Bible

This is the first in the series of attempts to answer some interesting questions by a non-Mormon newly interested in the religion. With some excitement it will be good to engage in a discussion that goes beyond the typical side issues of no modern practical importance; like Kolob, Garden of Eden in Missouri, and polygamy. Although those subjects are interesting, they don't make much of an impact in practiced faith. However, the questions that CD-Host asks are unusually insightful and important. I don't hold the same politics, but he seems devoted to understanding.

The first question will be the easiest to discuss: Why only the KJV? I'm pretty familiar with KJV-only-ism from Protestantism and I have a hard time seeing how any of their reasons would apply to Mormons.

Its a question that has engaged Mormons for at least a few generations. Reasons can vary between Mormons from the "only" camp to the "retire it" group. There is arguably nothing definite in Mormonism that requires the use of the KJV as a final Bible authority. Indeed, one of the criticisms raised against Mormons from some Evangelicals is that Mormons don't respect the Bible enough. This is because Mormons don't believe that Bible is infallible or inerrant, but still of religious and spiritual value. It is the Word of God, but written by fallible humans in mortal language. Joseph Smith actually preferred a German translation while trying to understand the Hebrew underlying the Old Testament. Its rather amazing that the KJV has come into such singular use.

For over 100 years the KJV has been the one Bible Mormons used as an authoritative religious text. The reason seems to be out of a shared tradition with the larger Christian Protestant America who only in the mid 20th Century started developing a wider selection of popular translations. Mormons could have followed easily enough, but Mormon First Presidency leader J. Rueban Clark wrote "Why the King James Version" whose arguments had great influence. Most of the arguments for staying with the KJV can probably be traced to his book. One of the main arguments was that with all the flaws found in the KJV, other translations reduced the Messianic Lordship of Jesus Christ as Son of God, or downplayed miracles and prophecy.

Still, the main reason it has endured is because of the language used for translation of the Book of Mormon, and revelations found in Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith, regardless of how amateurish the language to trained observers, used the KJV almost slavishly in putting down the words of inspiration. It is what Mormons have come to expect from Scriptures. As explained by an article devoted to the subject of Mormon use of the KJV:

Jacobean English is the language of LDS revelation. Furthermore, Joseph’s use of the KJV acted as a trigger for many of the revelations in the D&C . . . Joseph was fond of placing new doctrinal wine in old KJV bottles and much would be lost if Mormons were to use newer translations . . .

By retaining the KJV, a biblical link with certain Mormon doctrines is maintained and allows “all scripture [to be] woven together as one book” (Joseph Fielding McConkie). Use of another Bible would orphan Mormon phraseology, from the “And it came to pass”-es and other Jacobeanisms of the Book of Mormon to the important doctrines . . . Thus, to maintain unity with Joseph Smith and the Restoration, the KJV is retained.

The final main reason that the KJV dominates as the official Bible translation in use by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the 1979 publication of an extensive cross reference and study edition. It takes the idea of shared modern Scripture links and makes it in a sense literal. The project won some praise such as the 1980 top graphic arts award for the typesetting. A standard was set that could not be reproduced by easy replacement.

Another possible reason that no other translation was used, and by that time there were some that still retained a connection with the KJV, is copyright issues. For years the LDS Church had used Cambridge University Press version and there was no reason for that to change without some complications. Similarly this happened when the Spanish language Reina-Valera Bible was published, as stated in a question and answer, "The 1909 edition was chosen because of the availability of the copyright and the widespread regard for the quality of its translation."

Even if Mormon theology and history contains a non-mainstream Christianity, it essentially is conservative. Changes can happen abruptly, but only after necessity demands innovation. In a religious context it took more than a thousand years for the Restoration of the Gospel and the revelations of Joseph Smith and his successors were not received until questions got asked and pondered. Reasons to remain with the KJV might be slowly disappearing, but there currently isn't any overpowering reasons to switch. Members are free to use whatever version they would like in personal study. Even some LDS General Authorities have quoted from modern translations without any need to apologize. Regardless, the KJV continues to be used for unity of scripture, doctrine, membership, and tradition.

34 comments:

Thanks for the lengthy answer. I'm not being critical of the answer it seems well documented, but rather this seems somewhat like begging the question. In other words these are, to my mind, relatively minor barriers to transitioning. Certainly far less than say doing a new translation and building a full product line. The sort of thing that a church with 16m members would have no problem doing at all. So the answers make it clear why individual Mormons don't switch casually they don't make it clear why the church itself isn't putting effort into switching.

Indeed, one of the criticisms raised against Mormons from some Evangelicals is that Mormons don't respect the Bible enough. This is because Mormons don't believe that Bible is infallible or inerrant, but still of religious and spiritual value. It is the Word of God, but written by fallible humans in mortal language.

Agreed. No reason what-so-ever that the Mormon faith should import into itself the inconsistent and historically indefensible problems of Evangelical Christianity with regards to the bible.

One of the main arguments was that with all the flaws found in the KJV, other translations reduced the Messianic Lordship of Jesus Christ as Son of God, or downplayed miracles and prophecy.

Which is actually to some extent classically KJVonlyism, the idea that there are doctrinal shifts. The classic counter argument being that the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek originals are what is authoritative, if the KJV translates incorrectly than correct it. Certainly I can see the objections to say the RSV, NEB, GNB translations he was addressing. But the NIV/TNIV/NIV2011, HCSB, NLT, ESV would suffer from that objection. And of course a Mormon translation wouldn't present those problems with doctrine.

Moreover its seems to me the original Hebrew is much much more supportive of Mormon doctrine than the KJV, a good chunk of Mormon theology was based on the whole notion that Elohim is not Yahweh. The Greek is more of a mixed bag, but I know from my own previous conversations on bible translations that Mormons often like translations that emphasize the mystical in the Greek like Andy Gaus'.

Jacobean English is the language of LDS revelation. Furthermore, Joseph’s use of the KJV acted as a trigger for many of the revelations in the D&C . . . Joseph was fond of placing new doctrinal wine in old KJV bottles and much would be lost if Mormons were to use newer translations . . .

On the cultural issue, the language of prayer using KJV style language that is a more substantial barrier. This has been huge issue within Protestantism for 2-3 generations. And one that is extremely divisive, moreover. There is pretty good evidence from groups like the American Bible Society how poorly KJV style language is actually understood by average Americans.

But again this problem is solvable by updating the language in D&C, the Book of Mormon... An across the board replacement of Jacobean English. I agree this would want to be a coordinated sort of effort, but I've certainly seen complaints about the language in the Book or Mormon as well.

The final main reason that the KJV dominates as the official Bible translation in use by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the 1979 publication of an extensive cross reference and study edition. It takes the idea of shared modern Scripture links and makes it in a sense literal. The project won some praise such as the 1980 top graphic arts award for the typesetting. A standard was set that could not be reproduced by easy replacement.

Here I think we really do disagree. Building up a cross reference is included just about any bible software and is pretty easy to typeset. I'd imagine getting those links and notes moved is under a man month. Good quality typesetting takes time but we are talking something like a man year for a typesetter.

Thank you for the answer. But you can see by my responses that really we just peeled off one layer.

Q: Why use the KJV?A: Because of tradition and some minor hassles.

I'll see from your responses, but assume we can agree the minor hassles are easy to overcome, the real question is why support this tradition?

I can completely and totally understand this answer in that excellent 3 part series. But that one boils down to:

Q: Why not use a Protestant bible product line?A: Well because such a product line teaches Protestantism not the Mormon faith.

So I still think we are begging the question. The only reason that stands up is the cultural differentiation, the connection with Joseph Smith's way of thinking. And I can get the advantages of maintaining that connection as long as possible. I'm just not sure given the research on American understanding of the KJV language we aren't past that point from a practical stand point.

The Jerome Vulgate originally started as a bible for missionaries, virginal women, who were unable to read and speak Greek and thus could no longer use the LXX/NT in Greek. As time progressed understanding of Latin dropped off and the Catholic church has an official doctrinally supported Latin bible and all sorts of unofficial translations into the vulgar languages that people actually spoke and the priests who dealt with the vast majority actually understood well. Obviously the Mormon church is at least a century away from that sort of situation. But I do see this as a real issue. And moreover given that translation is one of the hottest political issues being discussed among other Christians, I would think there would be people on the other side.

I'm starting to think maybe the issue is that Deseret is wholly owned by the church. There is no one to play the role that the NCC did with the RSV, or Zondervan did with the NIV. In other words a new translation effort coming out of the church would be too much of a big deal and too divisive. But there isn't a 3rd party publisher that could pull it off.

Does that sound plausible?

Anyway thank you for an informative answer to my question. To some extent my responses took the topic off of "why" and into "is it a good idea", so I get if you don't want to keep going. But if you do I'd love to keep going until I really understand the why in a deeper sense.

Thank you for your responses. I would love to go more on this topic if there was more to add, but there isn't. For a more detailed reasoning (if there is one) I am afraid you would have to ask the leadership of the LDS Church. My best guess is that they still don't trust modern translations and yet don't want to be accused of "creating a Mormon made Bible" to be used for missionary work. Its not a "big thing" that is keeping a new translation from getting done, but a bunch of little things. Finally, I just don't think there is an inertia to change among those who could make it happen.

My best guess is that they still don't trust modern translations and yet don't want to be accused of "creating a Mormon made Bible" to be used for missionary work.

I agree there would be criticism. But ultimately they are the competition. They are going to say mean things about you.

From my perspective the people who hate Mormons hate lots of other groups. For example James White focuses on: KJVonlyists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Atheists and non Reformed Evangelicals. John MacArthur goes after: Charismatic Christians, non legalists, women in positions of authority in the church, Emerging Church, Christians who do yoga, the seeker sensitive movement, Mormons, kids with emotional problems, pastors who don't do lots of expository preaching, postmoderns...

The way I see it, when you all signed up to start a rebel church what part of "they gonna say mean stuff about you" warning didn't you get? :) There is a great line in the movie about Ty Cobb where his new gardner is about to quit saying "I can't work for that man he hates black people" and another black employee turns to him and says, "Ty Cobb doesn't hate black people, he hates all people". You may want to take that to heart when it comes to the relationship with your evangelical critics.

In all seriousness, why is there such a focus on what evangelicals think? Could you imagine Bryant Wright (head of the SBC) meeting with Lifeway and saying, "well I don't think we should push the HCSB too much it might tick off the Mormons"?

What is so great about evangelical Christianity that makes you want to join the club? It really does seem to be a major focus. Latin Rite Catholics are ultra conservative on social issues but they don't expect Evangelicals to like them because of that. I don't get it.

careful not to be too critical of the messenger :) I am only trying to give you the reasons why Mormons remain with the KJV, not act as an apologist on the subject. Personally, I would be thrilled if the LDS Church did a Bible translation. They have the scholars for it at BYU educated to be both theologically consistent with Mormonism and accurate enough to have a good version.

The only personal objection I have is my fondness for Jacobean English. I don't like modern style readings. That brings up another little reason I know of why there isn't a Mormon modern translation. English doesn't have an elevated language to address religious devotion. Keeping it as an expression of worship, particularly like Joseph Smith did for his translation of the Book of Mormon and his revelations, sets the Scriptures (and prayer) apart from the mundane. Not that modern prophets use it in discourse of their own revelations; and for more important revelations that lack of Jacobean actually bothers me. I have wanted to put the revelations of the polygamy prohibition and conferring Priesthood to all males into Jacobean and out of legalese. This argument doesn't, of course, preclude a new translation that is still in imitation.

"What is so great about evangelical Christianity that makes you want to join the club?"

Its in the violent history. Who were the ones who spearheaded the persecution and driving out of the Mormons from state to state? The Catholics? No. The Muslims? No. The Jews? No. The atheists? To an extent yes, but not without a major push by others. The Mainline Christians and Evangelicals? Yes, and with almost a century of success. To put it into perspective, Evangelical Protestantism is estimated to be %25 percent of US population and only %1 Mormon. A bully who has been known to do more than say mean things is hard to ignore. When you have had your arm twisted and nose broken, its hard not to say "Uncle" even before getting touched again. If anything, the deference has become reflexive.

I'm sorry, I was sorta putting you in the role of apologist. I'm not being critical of you personally. Let me ask, how do you want to handle follow up questions to your responses? I'm using a model of:

Q: Why do Mormons do or believe X?A; Because of A,B,C.Q: Well what about D, E, F?

What would you prefer?

Personally, I would be thrilled if the LDS Church did a Bible translation. They have the scholars for it at BYU educated to be both theologically consistent with Mormonism and accurate enough to have a good version.

Absolutely. In fact given the high view of leadership, prophetic revelation, I'd go further and say an entire product line makes sense. Mormons should have a digital version of something like Navarre bible commentary which links scripture as well as D&C to all sorts of commentary. For example having the bible tied to D&C references tied to articles from Discourses. We are at a point now where high end cell phones could probably run an application that size, imagine having that available for every Mormon.

The only personal objection I have is my fondness for Jacobean English. I don't like modern style readings. That brings up another little reason I know of why there isn't a Mormon modern translation. English doesn't have an elevated language to address religious devotion.

I agree. Its a real trade you gain comprehension and lose elevation. Jacobean English sounds elevated because you don't use it when buying groceries or getting your car repaired. Further the KJV is written in an elevated style even for the time.

Just to show what's possible REB aims for elegance and understandability. Sort of a 1/2 way mark.

Isaiah 9:6 For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us; he will bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder, and his title will be: Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Nahum 1:12-1412 These are the words of the LORD: Judah, though your punishment has been great, yet it will pass away and be gone. I have afflicted you, but I shall not afflict you again.13 Now I shall break his yoke from your necks and snap the cords that bind you.14 Nineveh, this is what the LORD has ordained for you: No more children will be born to you; I shall hew down image and idol in the temples of your gods: I shall prepare your grave, for you are of no account.

I have wanted to put the revelations of the polygamy prohibition and conferring Priesthood

My understanding is when that came out n 1890 it was quite deliberately not in "thus saith the Lord" language as to make it clear this was a political capitulation. It wasn't until about 1950 that the church moved from capitulation into actively attacking the practice.

Its in the violent history. Who were the ones who spearheaded the persecution and driving out of the Mormons from state to state? ... A bully who has been known to do more than say mean things is hard to ignore. When you have had your arm twisted and nose broken, its hard not to say "Uncle" even before getting touched again. If anything, the deference has become reflexive.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Jews, particularly prior to the holocaust have/had the same issue about picking fights with Christians. The deference does create a feeling that Mormonism isn't dangerous, and during the 19th century Evangelicals had the opposite opinion. OK... point taken.

How do I want you to present questions to me? Depends on the subject. I am personally not as invested in KJV-only-ism as perhaps other parts of Mormonism. For that reason what you were considering more of a personal opinion was my own presentation of history and known reasoning. I guess just try to ask the questions in a non-adversarial way, much like you did with me at your own blog.

For the record, I'm not trying to be a missionary either. It is just rare to discuss Mormonism with a non-member who takes it seriously and not dwelling on esoterica or polemics.

I didn't mean to be adversarial. Sorry problem of the medium. Anyway I'm ready to move on to the next issue. Its a good conversation.

Anyway... as far as missionary... I'd be a terrible Mormon. I resent authority in general, I'm politically liberal and tend to float in terms of interests. I could give up coffee and drinking no problem though :)

This is a cross link post, to help people follow the thread of discussion, for people coming from Church-Discipline there is no original content.

___

In response to one of my posts Jettboy (our host): commented

Mormons have never claimed we are historic Christians. I think you are misinterpreting Joseph Smith's historical claim. He claims a Restoration of Christianity that hasn't existed since near the death of the New Testament Apostles; not of what was if all Christianity was researched, but what was lost with mere shadows remaining. What happened has been described by apologist Hugh Nibley as when the lights went out on the Primitive Church. Mormons would say that we have:

Wow that was a great essay! That's a bit much to absorb. I agree with Nibley's core idea there are 3 not to options, and yep I never considered the 3rd. I may to get back to you a little on this one after I've had more time to mull that over... Its a terrific framework, because it essentially sees both the gnosticism and the proto-Catholicism as strangling the true infant church.

This is sort of the view I've seen with people who hold to an Essene Christianity that gets perverted early. Generally though Paul is seen as the villain, with John the Baptist, Peter and James representing the true church. For example Robert Eisenman constructs argues the original Christianity is what we see in the Dead Sea Scrolls.Jesus as myth. James the head of a faction, "the teacher of righteousness" High Priest Ananus ben Ananus 'the Wicked Priest' Saint Paul 'The man of lying' In my Paul's evil twin the 2nd scenario is essentially Eisenman's.

Its believable, its historically defensible. Its consistent with archeological finds after Joseph Smith died, but... how the heck can you have that theory and then use the New Testament which would essentially all come from the apostate church? Luke/Acts is one giant pro-Catholic apologetic, reworking the early history to seeing the 2nd century church as a continuation with the (then lost) 1st century Jerusalem church.

I can maybe see keeping Hebrews, Revelations. Even more questionable category I'd put Mark, John. The Catholic Epistles (James, Jude..) minus 1Peter. But that's about it. You can add First Epistle of Clement, the Jewish Apocrypha, Didache, Shepherd of Hermes, Gospel of the Hebrews...

It makes even less sense to keep the Protestant bible. There incidentally is a whole lot of Sufi stuff that is pretty early that supports that position. And of course since the church is guided by prophets you can pull in DSS stuff.

We talked about this before on your blog in terms of keeping the KJV. But, now you are talking the authentic Christianity died well before most of the bible's books were even written, and a good chunk of those books were written by the people killing it.

I guess what my immediate reaction is, that Mormonism seems an under reaction if that's the theory. For example that would put Jewish law back on the table.

Our host then requested: Maybe we can continue the KJV blog discussion at my straight and narrow and take it into a new direction to keep down on the clutter for this one. I am sure your on "Mormon" overload. What I just introduced and you asked does put it in a new light. I'll post your questions there later. They are good ones to be sure now that you have a better idea of what Mormons mean by The Great Apostasy.

I am sorry for not commenting on this sooner. Needless to say, the other questions exploded and neither of us had time to expand on this discussion. As I said, these are great questions. Yet, I don't think the reasoning will be too deep.

The short answer to why we accept all Protestant 66 books (including Paul) is that Joseph Smith did. He is the founding Prophet and therefore makes precedent. The only book he really had a problem with was Songs of Solomon that he said "is not inspired scripture." He didn't elaborate, other than not to do any kind of revelatory translation like the other Bible books. Even though Mormons could conceivably start using another translation other than the KJV, the use of all 66 (minus SofS?) books of the Bible have been used as, "inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," (2 Timothy 3:16) and treated with spiritual respect. Joseph Smith spoke highly of Paul even. In other words, Joseph Smith used them, God approved them, and therefore they became canon. No historical or textual arguments involved.

It might be considered that Joseph Smith took the Bible he had for granted and left it as is, without considering alternatives. To a degree, but that isn't completely true. He had the apocrypha in the back of the family Bible and he thought about revelatory translation of those as well. Praying if he should do this, the answer from the Lord is interesting. The parsing of "There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men," indicated not much different from Mormon perceptions of the Bible in general.

Part of the problem is that Joseph Smith never said or had a revelation on when or how the Great Apostasy happened; only that it did. It could have happened the final part of the First Century or some time in the Third. That means that the Bible books could still fall under when Primitive Christianity (define?) still had an existence. The final real break that I think most Mormons would label as a definitive line is Constantine and the Councils. It is true that they are the ones that picked out the Bible books, but the same goes for the anti-Catholic Protestants. Speaking of Paul, notice that Mormon Priesthood is associated with John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John. Like the Catholics who believe Peter is their founder, Paul never makes more than a missionary appearance.

Whew. I totally completely buy the Joseph Smith used the King James version casually and never seriously considered a major rethinking argument. The question is whether that is in any way consistent with the rest of his beliefs.

Let me just kill a simple matter of fact before moving on which might present a problem.

I think most Mormons would label as a definitive line is Constantine and the Councils. It is true that they are the ones that picked out the Bible books, but the same goes for the anti-Catholic Protestants.

This is modern myth. I'll assume this is not a Mormon doctrine issue and this is was just an off the cuff opinion. I don't know where this myth came from there is a tendency to attribute everything to Nicaea, which is a terrible theory (no insult intended this is a common belief) since we know:

a) Every item on the agendab) Every vote takenc) How how every bishop voted on every issue.

It is quite simply the best documented event in Christianity up until that point. Nothing about the bible was decided at Nicaea, there were a little over 80 issues voted on and decided and the canon was not among them. The only issue regarding the bible from Constantine was his belief that Revelations should not be part of the bible, which obviously he didn't win long term.

And just to prove the 50 bibles Constantine commissioned in 331 (6 years after Nicaea) including the Book of Judith, which caused problems for Jerome. In the 330 James and Jude were still controversial...

So even if you do use 325 as your date, you don't have a stable New Testament canon yet. As far as anyone knows the first bible with the Protestant New Testament canon is 383 and this canon starts getting officially endorsed in council of Carthage 397; and a final change in 419 which ends the debate in the West. In the East the debate continues and their churches still have a different canon.

____

Praying if he should do this, the answer [D&C 91 link] from the Lord is interesting.

As a historical issue, the Old Testament canon was stable between denominations in 1816. His position is a common one for non Anglican Americans. So no big issues there.

Part of the problem is that Joseph Smith never said or had a revelation on when or how the Great Apostasy happened; only that it did. It could have happened the final part of the First Century or some time in the Third. That means that the Bible books could still fall under when Primitive Christianity (define?) still had an existence.

Assuming that we don't want to view the great apostasy as myth, unsupportable by history, as an explanation for the doctrines when it happened matters a great deal for anything else in exploring the church. If the church is apostatizing it has to be apostatizing from something. Joseph Smith's argument was that he is restoring the keys, restoring the priesthood, restoring the original understanding.... not creating it out of whole cloth. That's a very strong claim IMHO.

As we progress through the decades of the 2nd century what we know about the churches that existed explodes. That's why I found Hugh Nibley's idea fascinating. While I don't agree it's historically defensible, much more-so than say Protestantism view of early history.

Let me give you an example, by 180 you have creedal statements like, "and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation". There are Christians who had other viewpoints around at the time, like adoptionists or docetism but what's difficult about putting the great apostasy in the third century is by the middle to the end of the 2nd you have a lot of elements of Catholicism already in place. Moreover we know the churches of the 2nd century, so if the Catholics aren't the true church then who is? We know the sects that existed then and we know what their points of dispute were.

This is why I don't see how you can defend a great apostasy, assuming we mean the Catholics after the later 2nd century and I'd argue even the middle is iffy. The "true church" has to folding by the start of the 2nd century to be gone enough not to be noticed by 180.

And this leads directly into the canon.

Lets assume we give Luke/Acts and the pastorals a late date, middle of the 2nd century. That is Luke/Acts is a response to Marcion and pastorals a response to Valentinus (mainly though they do have anti-Marcionite materials). Then these books are the authoritative manuals creating false claims about the apostles so as to support the great apostasy (unless it happened much earlier like middle of the 1st century). They are books being written to defend the very processes that's killing the true church.

If you put Luke/Acts early (which as an aside I don't personally believe) and consider it to be mostly true, then you have Catholicism as the dominant church in the first century. Luke/Acts draws a line from: Jesus -> Peter -> Paul -> Church Fathers with no break. So this eithera) pushes forward the date for the great apostasy orb) requires that the "true church" be one of the other 2nd century sects which wouldn't have used the Catholic canon.

In my Hermetic article I had misunderstanding of the great apostasy where the "true church" (Hermetic church) gradually melted away, and there wasn't a sharp break. If there is a sharp break, I don't see how you can use essentially the Protestant Canon when its the bible of the enemy. It would be like adopting the Qu'ran.

I think it may be that part of the reason you aren't seeing my upset is that you aren't seeing how Catholic the KJV really is.

Quick points about the KJV in terms of ties to the late Catholic church...

1) The book choice itself is 5th century as I mentioned.

2) The versions of the books are the Catholic versions. Tertullian wonderfully documents how complex the choices were between versions and verses. He and Origin are essentially reconstructing these books and determining on a verse by verse basis what is going to be in each book for a variety of disparate traditions. The Greek originals are the Catholic ones. We know other versions existed (like Ephesians) and for some of them like Luke, Galatians the notes are so thorough we are able to reconstruct the alternate versions. So we have things like verses being reverse translated out of the Vetus Latina (old Latin) back into Greek

3) The entire Latin translations philosophy, in particular how to handle old testament verses (Hebrew and Aramaic) that are quoted in the New Testament comes from Jerome. Moreover the choice not to use Greek Old Testament, the one used by the early church but to retranslate from the Hebrew in a Christianized form, comes from Jerome.

4) The English bible tradition comes from the Latin of Jerome. The KJV frequently chooses to translate Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic in line with the Latin so as to maintain consistency with Christian tradition. The main exception being on those verses where Protestants were explicitly rejecting Catholic doctrines the KJV tended to translate in line with Protestant understanding (i.e. "give us our daily bread", not "give us our supersubstantial bread").

When we first started this conversation I had problems with the KJV, but our conversation about the Great Apostasy has made those magnify tremendously. If the true church died, not gradually fell into error, then I can't see how the KJV isn't the bible of a false church designed to promote those areas in which it is a false church.

I think Mormons would have to:

a) rethink the canonb) rethink the choice of which chapters / sections to includec) rethink the choice of original sourcesd) rethink the translation methodologye) redo the translation

(b) and (c) maybe I can see skipping if you want to argue for a late great apostasy but I kinda addressed why I don't think that works.

I know I'm asking you to play the role of apologist here on an issue you don't really focus on but I think I've clarified on the surface why I see a strong contradiction.

"In my Hermetic article I had misunderstanding of the great apostasy where the "true church" (Hermetic church) gradually melted away, and there wasn't a sharp break."

I do see what you mean and I tried in my "didn't give a date . . . and it could have been between . . ." statement to imply that it very well could have been gradual. And, if you read Hugh Nibley (and many other Mormons on the subject) he is stating that it was gradual. My point about the time of Constantine and the Councils was that by at least that time it was gone. In other words, its not the Catholic that is the problem (although it is a thought that has been mildly considered by Mormons when reading the Bible), but the loss of authority.

A possibility is that the Catholics still had both the theological and Priesthood authority for a a few centuries. Then they lost it as the original Apostles died and the lower rank Bishops held positions that made it impossible to replenish the Prophetic authority. What you would have, in effect, is schisms (like you mention with the Jerusalem Church and Paul) that hold legitimate authority, but don't act as a single group. Eventually these groups separate from each other enough that the structure falls apart and then no group has legitimate authority to pass to the next generations. Constantine (who doesn't have any priesthood authority), as an example, tries to bring the several groups together, but too much too late.

In essence, I believe, that is what Joseph Smith was saying about the Catholics:

"[the] old Catholic Church is worth more than all [the other churches]—here is a princ[iple]. of logic–that men have no more sense–I will illustrate [with] an old apple tree—here jumps off a branch & says I am the true tree. & you are corrupt–if the whole tree is corrupt how can any true thing come out of it—the charr[character] of the old ones have always been sland[ere]d. by all apos[tates] since the world began—

“I testify again as God never will acknowledge any apost[ate]: any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you–& if he will betray one anoth[e]r. he will betray you”

He also said that the Catholics have more truth in them than they themselves recognize. So, my own thought on the subject, perhaps the Catholics were the "true" Church after all, but died because the branches couldn't survive for long without the roots. Also, too many heretics joined and mixed in with the orthodoxy until a final puttering out.

Interesting enough, Joseph Smith sort of did c) rethink the choice of original sources d) rethink the translation methodology and e) redo the translation. The whole point of D&C 91 was that he was in the process of "translating" the Bible that later became the Joseph Smith Translation. There is some argument if he eventually finished or if it was an ongoing project. Of course, his method of translation was revelation and not document textual criticism, but you can see by his insistence to learn Hebrew (mostly), Greek, and Latin (to lesser degrees) that he was aware of the problems.

The Catholic link is good. I've often heard Catholics make the counter argument to Protestants regarding apostolic continuation, "Either the Catholic Church is right or the Mormon Church is your's can't be" for essentially that reason. Protestants have an untenable position of endorsing creeds written by people all of whom would have seen Luther, Calvin, Zwingli... as schismatics and heretics at best.

Its nice to know that Joseph Smith saw the same connection from his side. I'd love to see dialogue between Mormonis and Orthodox (capital o) Christianity, I could see that as being far more fruitful.

My point about the time of Constantine and the Councils was that by at least that time it was gone

OK, but we were discussing bibles so its an interesting point to draw the line since Constantine doesn't do anything much about the bible. The Wulfila, the bible of Arian Christians. isn't even controversial in Constantine's time.

If the issue is the institutionalization of the Trinity here is the Arian creed, the other side at Nicaea. I could see a Mormon being more comfortable with this one though still disagreeing possible with some parts like unbegotten and invisible.

The other issue, is that 325 is still too early to have anything like a KJV (Protestant canon, Protestant translation tradition) be supportable. You can say you got the Catholic choices of sources texts by that point, so at least that ends any problems within the NT books themselves about what chapters and verses to have.

I believe that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:49) And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1:8) Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.

I thought that I had posted something, but I guess not. There is an online book Restoring the Ancient Church:Joseph Smith and Early Christianity by Barry Bickmore that discusses the Apostasy. Of most interest to this discussion is probably the 2nd Chapter. Near the end he talks about the Bible Canon although not as focus. His views aren't considered doctrine, as Mormons tend to have different ideas when the Apostasy happened and how.

I guess to kind of answer why the Protestant Bible as we have it for the KJV while not rejecting parts I'll quote, "But it never occurred to anyone to close the canon until nearly the third century! Historian Willem Van Unnik notes that until that time the Christians would have had no objection whatever to 'someone . . . add[ing] something to the word of the Gospel.' The very existence of a document such as the Shepherd of Hermas shows that the possibility of a new word of revelation was nothing to be wondered at. The Shepherd, which purports to be a series of revelations given to one other than the Apostles or their associates in the first half of the second century, hovered on the edge of the canon for centuries. Indeed, included in the Shepherd is a series of mandates which Hermas was commanded to write for the benefit of all who might read them." Mormons are not in the habit of throwing away Christian Scriptures. On the other hand, getting something made as part of the Canon is very difficult (I know to a non-believer it seems only to take a snap of the finger, but that isn't the way believers look at it) , taking Prophetic and not Scholastic reasoning.

Interesting article. I agree with a lot of what they wrote except the idea that Paul So just for lurkers the timeline on this is

rebellion starts around 50true church is losing 80-90true church extinct by 150 probably closer to 100

One thing I didn't quite get from the article is their attitude towards Montanism. I wasn't sure if this article saw it as a positive continuation of the church or as a sign Catholic church's fall. Particularly since he seems to support Shepherd of Hermas which is also coming from that community.

If he wanted a pro-Montanism stance you could make an argument like:John's community is the last vestige of the true church around 80 with Montanus coming out of that community and Montanism starts dying out slowly, by the late 4th it barely exists. That puts the timeline after Nicaea but it makes it a non mainstream sect which had little influence. It was however one that was reasonably friendly with Catholics.

There are some problems however:a) Montanism was either modalist or trinitarian. It never saw the son as a separate person.

b) Montanism was opposed to apostolic authority, it's non hierarchical fundamentally though it does support prophetic leadership. The comparisons with modern Pentecostal Christianity are fair. I'm not sure Mormons consider this group.

c) In terms of canon obviously this is too early. John, Revelations and Hebrews become the most important books. I'd assume since the argument is based on Hermas that would be in. From there all the stuff from Johanne community is in, which changes little except Thunderer becomes a series candidate. Since Hebrews and James are in, The book of Melchizedek is in (which I assume Mormons would really like for a variety of reasons). It opens up discussion of later stuff from the community like Gospel of Mary Magdalen (which is gnostic but does present Peter, being used as a symbol for the Catholic Church, as rejecting divine revelation for power, which seems consistent with your views of what was going on, plus of course support for prophetic leadership).

Anyway its an interesting sect to identify with.

But my point is whether the Mormon church wants to identify with that sect of not (which is something I think they have to do in some collective sense) the canon problem is still definitely there.

As an aside Montanus seemed to believe in something like sealing, in that he believed marriage was eternal and thus 2nd marriages for widows were adulterous.

Finally, because Tertullian is a Montanist in later life, that does solve the issue of which versions of which books problem. _____

Now if the point was just to assert the church was definitely dead by then, then we are back to the more general issues. But it does avoid the "how does the Mormon church escape notice" issue.

But anyway I like the article. But it doesn't solve the entire canon problem though.

Well actually you did make a post. The first paragraph of your response came through originally as an anonymous post, seems gone now. So my response to anon is to the first paragraph.

As an aside I read a good chunk of Talmage between these posts. He does a nice job of defining the great apostasy in stages:

a) Apostasy from the church in the 1st century.b) Apostasy of the church in the 3rd century.

Defining the proto-Catholic/Catholic church as "the church" for the 2nd century. He seems to believe the persecutions of Diocletian ( Constantine's predecessor essentially) were more successful than history records them and essentially wiped out the church. So he's agree on the when it was definitely over.

"But it never occurred to anyone to close the canon until nearly the third century! Historian Willem Van Unnik notes that until that time the Christians would have had no objection whatever to 'someone . . . add[ing] something to the word of the Gospel.'

I think this is true somewhat that in 180 there is a battle about closing the apostolic writings to keep out various 2nd century authors. But using this idea in a modern context is somewhat oversimplified. There were a huge number of early Christians who rejected the idea of any Christian writings being "scripture" seeing scripture usually as the LXX only.

It was Marcion who essentially opened the debate around 130 with his introduction of a New Testament for Christianity, the Apostolicon, to which then all sorts of groups added their sect's key / founding documents. Once Marcion did this and all sorts of different Christian groups agreed the question was what to put in it. There were some who wanted to keep certain materials out.

I'd argue that in general you really have two notions of canon up until the reformation:

a) A distinguished set of writings by the early apostles (this is closed in the 5th century)

b) a distinguished set of writing authoritative for the the church and I'd argue this doesn't close until the reformation.

For example all during the 16th century there are debates within Catholicism whether 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses are part of the bible or not. Traditionally they were in, according to councils they were out. When the Vulgata Sixtina, the first post reformation vulgate was published without them this was one of the reasons Catholics rejected it.

Mormons are not in the habit of throwing away Christian Scriptures. On the other hand, getting something made as part of the Canon is very difficult (I know to a non-believer it seems only to take a snap of the finger, but that isn't the way believers look at it) , taking Prophetic and not Scholastic reasoning.

Don't get me wrong I don't think this is easy. I think we agree that the early Mormon church picked the KJV out of convenience. I would agree the Mormon church of the 1830s, 1840s just lacked the resources to handle this problem. It would make perfect sense for a Brigham Young in 1850 to sit back and let the Anglican Church take the lead here and do the heavy lifting it was doing in re-examining the New Testament papyri and codexes to try and build reference works. I have no problems at all, with the 19th century Mormon church deciding, "not yet".

My issue is that the 21st Mormon church, easily has the resources. Right off the bat they own a top 100 university with a top 10 library. They can fund whatever research they don't have the in house skills for easily (remember we are talking humanities research, $1m buys them any researcher they want). The Mormon church is 700x the size it was under Joseph Smith.

Moreover the whole canon question is much more serious today than it was in the 19th century. Liberal Christianity is starting to have a very serious canon debate.

(part 2)I'm not say throw away Christian scripture. What I'm saying is they do need to decide:

What is tier 1What is tier 2What is tier 3

Right now it seems either:

a) BoM is tier 1. KJV, Pearl and D&C are tier 2. b) They are all tier 1.

There are a huge number of choices in putting those particular 66 books, those particular versions of them, under that particular translation as a top tier book.

Lets take Shepherd. If I ask a Catholic why isn't Shepherd canonical they can point me to St. Athanasius and Pope Callistus who considered it holy but not scripture. They can point me to: St. Irenæus and Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria argument that this was written by the Hermas from Romans 16:14, and that this position on who wrote it was considered and rejected by St. Jerome. They can verify that Jerome's thoughts on the matter were reconsidered multiple times and upheld. They have, to use the common law analogy, case law.

You can argue the church made the wrong decision, but you can't argue they made an uninformed one. And more importantly the canon question isn't too important to Catholics since the canon sits in a huge body of authoritative interpretation which does draw on those alternate works.

If I ask a Protestant they give me some BS which is based on historical ignorance that everyone instantly agreed with that canon was and it revealed itself without too much trouble. And as Protestants learn more about how complex the Catholic choices were, how complex the debates were this undermines their case. As Protestantism has to rollback what year they believe the church fell into error they are in serious trouble on this issue. They are also having more trouble on the verse by verse by verse issues.

And then, on their whole theory of translation within the evangelical camp is getting so heated that its spent about 60 years as one of the most divisive issues and likely getting more-so. Major economic interests are lining up behind various translations, and in many ways these are acting as proxies for denominations. As this happens the common membership is getting drawn into translation debates which is exposing them more and more to the complexity and ambiguity that really exists. Without an authoritative church, they generation by generation are losing their authoritative bible.

Now Mormonism has a broader notion of canon and rejects sola scriptura. So the whole KJV canon issue is of secondary importance. On the other hand, you are not only having a historical problem but an idealogical one.

How would a Mormon know that say Titus is a product of the true church and not the apostate church? Should they or shouldn't they make life choices based on those words? How seriously should they take them? Talmage can just assume Titus was written by Paul, scholarship is making that position harder to maintain.

I know this is hard, but unlike Protestants you have the ability to fix this. The church doesn't have to bite off the whole thing at once.

"If I ask a Protestant they give me some BS which is based on historical ignorance that everyone instantly agreed with that canon was and it revealed itself without too much trouble."

That is too funny, and sounds like something a Mormon apologist (like B. Bickmore, that author of the link) would say to them. I think this is one area of argument that even the top LDS leadership has to find compelling. Both apologists and leadership have been saying this for years.

"How would a Mormon know that say Titus is a product of the true church and not the apostate church? Should they or shouldn't they make life choices based on those words? How seriously should they take them?"

I think we are back to square two (and one was a misunderstanding of my own position on KJV-only-ism) where we are in agreement that re-translation for a new version is possible, if not a positive. My only concern is with the tiers. To make things clear, I will define tier 1 as un-amendable (although in Mormonism that doesn't mean un-correctable). Tier 2 is amendable with better translations and use of original source materials. Finally, tier 3 can be accepted and rejected as part of the canon.

I can think of the Book of Mormon as tier 1 without hesitation. The KJV might be a tier 3 ideally, but the books it contains are all tier 2. The Doctrine and Covenants is a tier 1, but there are and have been tier 3 sections both in it and out of it, with a few tier 2 that should still remain included. The Pearl of Great Price is similarly a tier 1, but I don't think contains tier 2, and yet has had and does currently contain tier 3. Examples of tier 3 would be the History of the Church now and Lectures on Faith nearly 100 years ago (as an aside, if you haven't read the Lectures on Faith in your Mormon studies, I would suggest it. Some of its theology is outdated, but the majority is fascinating and instructive).

I'll have to answer the more constructive question of how to determine the status of other Bible inclusions later. Running out of time. Regardless, I do think there are some guidelines that can be, and frankly in apologetics has been, used.

"How would a Mormon know that say Titus is a product of the true church and not the apostate church?"

Like I said above, for the Bible books as a whole; Mormons would start with Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets used them as authoritative, all of them were to one degree or another quoted in other revelations (particularly Doctrine and Covenants) showing approval by the Lord, and therefore should remain canon. Rejecting that Paul wrote the Pastorals and still using them wouldn't be a problem except for the most literalist members. Add an historical footnote and a few paragraphs in the Bible Dictionary about the questionable authoriship and no disregarding of them needed.

Perhaps now that I have read a little more "Great Apostasy" studies along with your commentary, my definition of "Primitive Christianity" has expanded to proto-Catholic/Catholic up to near 200? dateline. I am not sure if you have reconsidered that all the 66 Protestant books in the Bible would not be overly problematic by the new information. From there it would be a matter of using the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek to reconstruct and produce a new translation. It has been noted by others that the Mormon KJV already has footnotes translating some words.

The real hard part would be decisions of OT and NT canon inclusion, because I do think there are some candidates. Based on what Mormon apologists used over the years, the criteria includes:

1) The texts must be doctrinally consistent with major Mormon teachings and revelations. Of course, that is the whole point of canon creation from the start; to weed out undesirables and find useable material. Brigham Young stated his own teachings, for example, should be placed under the same scrutiny.

2) Gnostic scriptures for the most part will be rejected. Critics of Mormonism have pointed to superficial similarities in concerns over prophecy and hidden mysteries (sacred secret), but the two are philosophically at odds with each other over the nature of spirit and matter, much less the literalness of Jesus and miracles.

3) An over abundance of Hellenistic ideas and words is a sure sign the material should be avoided. Unlike Gnostics, that isn't a deal breaker, but it can be problematic. Writings that use it as a way to communicate teachings to the surrounding culture is permissible because unavoidable. Any texts that define doctrine by Hellenistic terms and ideas should be rejected.

4) The more simple the words, no matter how complicated the ideas, the better chance it comes from a pure source. Sophistication can imply corruption or confusion. A more careful analysis would have to be done if this isn't followed.

I don't know enough about what texts are out there to make anywhere near an exhaustive list of what follows the above, and within the pre-Great Apostasy period of time. Some possible texts include, from the abundance of Mormon apologetic reference: 1 Clement, Didache, Shepherd of Hermes, 1 Enoch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and selected Dead Sea Scrolls literature.

Glad you liked the Protestant comment about the easy choice we agree there!

Perhaps now that I have read a little more "Great Apostasy" studies along with your commentary, my definition of "Primitive Christianity" has expanded to proto-Catholic/Catholic up to near 200? dateline.

OK so just to make sure you are saying no on the Montanists? Also just to be clear for future reference:

Mormon sources I've read tend to have 2 different opinions

a) Theological sources tend to basically follow Acts as being essentially true. There is a Jerusalem church, apostles come out of that, Pauline Christianity comes next early on their is a rebellion which grows in strength. The Catholic church is to some extent a child of the Jerusalem church but is getting ever more "corrupt" with time.

b) There are BYU sources that seem to agree with the more modern theory. There is a huge range of proto-Christianities that form around 200 BCE, evolve interact and merge. Some of these groups are interested in institutional authority and are able to merge and that becomes the Catholics. This has the advantage of of allowing the Mormon theory of the "great apostasy" an entire school of secular scholarship. The James White's of the world are outgunned in terms of sources :) the downside is the presuppositions are naturalistic, history of religions. You see this in Bultmann style Protestants, liberal Catholics, atheism, modern gnostic groups...

My personal opinion, not shockingly is (b). Catholic sources obviously assume (a) and I think you seem to lean towards (a). I can grant (a) for the purpose of this discussion. But as we are going to get more specific I think its important to point out I'm going to be faithfully arguing from within the Catholic framework even though I believe there is evidence that it is incorrect.

As an aside, (a) vs. (b) has a huge impact for the 1st century looks like. By around 120 it doesn't matter as much whether big clumps have gelled together or big chunks have broken off. The history is pretty much the same either way.

But the history of these various books which are first century varies a lot depending on which school you are coming from. I'll stick to (a) style history to simplify unless you object.

Mormons would start with Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets used them as authoritative, all of them were to one degree or another quoted in other revelations (particularly Doctrine and Covenants) ...

That's a good test since D&C. I agree with your tiers BTW and like the separation where the books are tier 2 and the KJV translation itself tier 3.

Rejecting that Paul wrote the Pastorals and still using them wouldn't be a problem except for the most literalist members. Add an historical footnote and a few paragraphs in the Bible Dictionary about the questionable authoriship and no disregarding of them needed.

Well that makes things easy. If authenticity comes from JS you now have a stable reason to have those books in.

1) The texts must be doctrinally consistent with major Mormon teachings and revelations.

This is a good criteria. Though frankly you could do better drop some of the NT and pick a lot of alternatives. Basically there are tons and tons of Hermetic stuff that support Mormonism really well.

Also the apocrypha is rather friendly to Mormonism. That wouldn't be that controversial.

On the old front one I don't think you would take is from the Mandaeans (Gnostic Jewish sect that came out John the Baptist movement) has the book of John the Baptizer which is rather King Follet discourse Mormon friendly in terms of doctrines and arguably is very old. Downside is its hostile to Jesus, Paul and Jesus are identified with a pun on "paulis" which is Persian for deceiver.... Big idea would be a lengthy discussion from Jesus and John on the nature of "spirit children" (they don't use that term) and eternal marriage. Also it puts the great apostasy in terms of splitting earlier you have John's 30 apostle's splitting and fighting. Depends if you want to push the whole spitting back a generation or not.

I get the criteria and I agree.

2) Gnostic scriptures for the most part will be rejected. Critics of Mormonism have pointed to superficial similarities in concerns over prophecy and hidden mysteries (sacred secret), but the two are philosophically at odds with each other over the nature of spirit and matter, much less the literalness of Jesus and miracles.

Agree with everything you wrote here. Every major difference between Mormonism and Protestantism are steps away from Gnosticism. Fundamentally Gnostics reject the whole notion of priesthood authority, I agree for Mormonism use with caution or not at all.

Similarly with stuff from the Marcionite churches.

3) An over abundance of Hellenistic ideas and words is a sure sign the material should be avoided.

This is where you have a bit of a problem. Obviously the most Hellenistic stuff is the late Gnostic you don't want anyway. But... things like 1 Cor, 2 Cor are loaded with Hellenistic language. You don't notice this as much in the English because they tend to Christianize the translation. But in the Greek, wow... There is a reason gnostics like Valentinus loved Paul.

Gospel of John is even more serious. The whole theory of the gospel light vs. darkness crucially depends on the Greek, "it takes light to know light" motif about vision. Jesus being the light of man, only makes sense via. Hellenism.

So just pointing out you a slight problem. Just remember almost all the Christian literature is in Greek, which means its emerging from Hellenistic Judaism. There are a few things that are highly non Hellenistic but most of those IMHO went the other way. Like for example, Gospel of the Nazarenes is pretty much a de-Hellenized Matthew not an original source text.

So (3) might be harder than it sounds. I think (2) kind of criteria is more likely where you want to go choosing from various schools. Hellenism is too broad.

That's a lot like the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox church, except for the DSS. BTW you sure about the DSS? A lot of the DSS stuff this is of interest to Christians is extremely hostile to Paul and the Catholics.

BTW why not 2Enoch with all the stuff on Melchizedek?

The upside is, you get a much longer/original (pre Christian) version of the book of James which helps with the whole "sola fide", lets just put this way the title is "The Epistle on Works Righteousness".

DSS you can pick up some interesting stuff. Like 11Q13 describes a new order of priests in the order of Melchizedek but faithful to the God of Israel who shall be the returners of truth. Which Mormons have gotta love. They then kill everyone else, who are identified as spirit of Belial... which is the problem with the DSS. The sect that wrote them was a bit off the wall. Also btw presents Melchizedek as an angel.

Like I said, I don't know much about what is out there and only going by Mormon apologist usages. Currently this is all just "fantasy" because I am a mere member of the LDS Church with no authority other than a general Priesthood holder. That doesn't mean if I so wanted that I couldn't read or have copies of my own collection. On the other hand, I don't think I could get away with quoting them as more than quick reference material in Sunday School or a talk.

That said, I believe that this issue is not completely unlikely. There is a department at BYU that is called "Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts" that has interpreted Muslim, Early Christian, and Jewish sources. The Church is very interested in other ancient material, if only through its more scholarly avenues of research.

I suppose Enoch 2 could be included, but like I said, I don't know much. I also found book on the Great Apostasy, although I don't know if it would add anything new. I also found the classic Hugh Nibley Mormonism and Early Christianity that the first essay came from.

My inclusion of the Dead Sea Scrolls is tentative. There has been great interest in the texts from the time of the discovery.

If you wanted real answers to the question why the KJV, then the only ones that can respond with authority are the Apostles and Prophets that lead the LDS Church. They are, after all, the ones that can make these kinds of decisions. Personally, I don't think too many members would have a problem re-translating and re-arranging the Bible. You can even argue there is a mandate to do just that in the Doctrine and Covenants when Joseph Smith was to re-translate by prophecy the Bible text. Doing this through scholarship wouldn't be out of the question either, as Joseph Smith became very interested in the original languages. If he had his hands on them I don't doubt he would have used them; no matter how prophetically creative his productions.

I think your first book-link is mis-pointed. Anyway understood you don't have the power to change something. Canon by its very nature requires a community change.

a) I understand the language of prayer, ties to the BoM and other cultural issues that make a shift from the KJV not as easy as it would be for most churches.

b) I think you are essentially agreeing now that there is no particular reason for the Mormon church to be stuck with the Protestant canon. They are really free to choose essentially from scratch. Which is wonderful.

c) I think we agree on the sorts of criteria they might want to use.

d) In terms of the great apostasy I get the two stage process:

splits start around 50priesthood authority is lost around 80-90true church extinct by X

I think that's historically defensible. I think you want the true church extinct prior to about 120 otherwise there is just too much data. I know that's earlier than most Mormons would like it.

Which is why I think the more modern approach with the splits already existing... helps ..

e) I think we both agree that JS was moving towards a broader retranslation.

I guess I'm ready to move onto the culture question at this point. This is thread is hitting the "why is the leadership so much more tentative and pensive today than it was a 150 years ago" issue. And I think a general better understanding of how conservatives relate to this sort of liberalism might help me get a handle on what the leadership is up against.

This little discussion about the KJV has been enlightening and fun. It forced me to study the topic of the Great Apostasy more than I ever had, and in the process refine my own beliefs about what happened. The cultural conservatism issue is a much harder discussion because it essentially asks to psychoanalyze a whole Church in a general way. I'll get to writing a post on the question when time permits. My own preliminary thoughts are that it has to do a little with theology and a lot with history.

The cultural conservatism issue is a much harder discussion because it essentially asks to psychoanalyze a whole Church in a general way.

Yep pretty much. Looking forward to your post. If it is going to be a while, and I'm not responding to whatever new threads you've created in the intervening days/weeks/months/years drop a note at my blog when it shows up.

About Me

I am an Idaho native who likes to read and write about a variety of subjects. I graduated with a B.A. in English from BYU. Mormonism, one of my main interests, has fascinated me ever since my early teenage years.